US President Barack Obama on Monday challenged the "unelected" Supreme Court not to take the "extraordinary" and "unprecedented" step of overturning his landmark health reform law.

Though Obama said he was confident the court would uphold the law, the centerpiece of his political legacy, he appeared to be previewing campaign trail arguments should the nine justices strike the legislation down.

In a highly combative salvo, Obama also staunchly defended the anchor of the law -- a requirement that all Americans buy health insurance -- as key to giving millions of people access to treatment for the first time.

"Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said.

Pointed comments from Supreme Court justices last week during three days of compelling hearings have convinced many commentators that the court, expected to rule in June, will declare the law, dubbed ObamaCare, unconstitutional.

Smart of you to exclude Obama's name from your threads these days. You're still pathetic and obsessive, but at least they won't show up in title searches. One day, you'll seem a little less creepy and sad than you really are.

Smart of you to exclude Obama's name from your threads these days. You're still pathetic and obsessive, but at least they won't show up in title searches. One day, you'll seem a little less creepy and sad than you really are.

Well, it was nearly split in the House but it passed the Senate by 60-39. I'd call that a strong majority.

I don't like the bill either, for what it's worth. I am interested in the Supreme Court case though, because I think both arguments for and against make sense. I get the argument that the mandate is unconstitutional in that it forces people to buy a product. On the other hand, I think the White House has a point that the healthcare industry isn't like other industries, in that we're all participants even if some consumers aren't paying for it. So I'll be interested in the outcome and reading the final arguments.

This is my signature. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.

"Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said.

Are you focking kidding me???

Isn't every law overturned by the SCOTUS been passed by a majority in Congress???

Does Obama even know WTF unprecedented even means???

Seems like the SCOTUS has been doing exactly this for more than 200 focking years. In fact, they have overturned more than 150 laws passed by a majority in Congress.

Seems like the SCOTUS has plenty of precedent in overturning laws passed.

And how does our Ruler feel about the role of the Supreme Court in protecting our Constitution? Well yesterday Obama said: “Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

Holy Cow! Just where to you begin with that obscene utterance from our president? This guy used to be a Constitutional law professor? Well … uh … actually, no. He wasn’t. He was never a professor. Never an assistant professor. Instructor, maybe. Perhaps he just graded papers. This “Constitutional Law Professor” is an ObamaMedia myth.

There is nothing “extraordinary” about the Supreme Court overturning a law .. an act of Congress. Happens all the time. Been happening since 1803. That’s when Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the opinion on the concept of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison. That was 209 years ago, and since then … well, let me just lift this paragraph out of a Wall Street Journal editorial this morning:

“Chief Justice John Marshall laid down the doctrine of judicial review. In the 209 years since, the Supreme Court has invalidated part or all of countless laws on grounds that they violated the Constitution. All of those laws were passed by a "democratically elected" legislature of some kind, either Congress or in one of the states. And no doubt many of them were passed by "strong" majorities.”

You can read the entire editorial here.

So … it turns out that overturning laws passed by democratically elected congresses is the job of the Supreme Court! Who knew! And if the Court does that with ObamaCare, it will be anything but “unprecedented.” Somehow our “Constitutional Law Professor” and the editor of the Harvard Law Review (in which he never wrote a law review article) wasn’t aware of this! If you’re surprised, you haven’t been paying attention.

But there’s a more important tell from the Oval Office Occupier here .. and that is Obama’s reference to “a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” First of all .. ObamaCare was hardly passed by a strong majority. It received no Republican votes, and the House had to resort to legislative gimmickry to get the bill to the Ruler’s desk for a signature. Secondly … Obama’s homage to “democratically elected” is your indication that Obama believes we are a country of majority rule, rather than the rule of law. Obama’s position seems to be that a majority vote of the Congress overrules the Constitution. Again … this guy taught Constitutional law? I know more about how to perform a laparoscopic tubal coagulation than Obama does about our Constitution. I guess he just can’t be troubled to pay all that much attention to a document he despises.

If ObamaCare is overturned, look to Caesar to start screaming “judicial activism!” The incomparable Thomas Sowell saw this “judicial activism” ploy over ObamaCare coming over a year ago.

You don't need to ask whether Congress exceeded its authority under the Constitution. That key question can be sidestepped by simply calling the judge a "judicial activist."

A judge who lets politicians do whatever they want to, whether or not it violates the Constitution, never has to worry about being called a judicial activist by the left or by most of the media. But the rest of us have to worry about what is going to happen to this country if politicians can get away with ignoring the Constitution.

Anyway, I think Obama is on dangerous ground here. If Kennedy is indeed the swing vote, he runs the risk of pissing him off. Yeah yeah, it's not supposed to effect him. But the justices are people too, and in the end their rulings are based on the sum total of their perspectives. If not, every issue would be clear and we would have a 9-0 vote every time.

If I were Obama I'd tone it down. He can still get the point across about the importance of there being clear constitutional violation if you are going to overturn something of this magnitude, without being... himself.

"But it's the Presidential election where the average citizens come out. The ones who hardly even know there are midterms, let alone research and/or vote for them. And you guys haven't fared so well recently." -- NewbieJr, explaining that Democrats are uninformed and uninterested.

Well, it was nearly split in the House but it passed the Senate by 60-39. I'd call that a strong majority.

I don't like the bill either, for what it's worth. I am interested in the Supreme Court case though, because I think both arguments for and against make sense. I get the argument that the mandate is unconstitutional in that it forces people to buy a product. On the other hand, I think the White House has a point that the healthcare industry isn't like other industries, in that we're all participants even if some consumers aren't paying for it. So I'll be interested in the outcome and reading the final arguments.

Great reasoning. The Feds pass a law that says hospitals can't refuse care to anyone regardless of ability to pay. Based upon that, they say we're all participants in the market for health care. Therefore, they should be able to force us to buy health insurance. See anything wrong with that logic?

2008 Geek Bored Football Pick'em Champion

Meet the new politics of hope and change - same as the old politics

What ... was your father abusive towards you? Did he fondle you in the naughty places? Is that why the subject of pedophelia bothers you so much?

Anyway, I think Obama is on dangerous ground here. If Kennedy is indeed the swing vote, he runs the risk of pissing him off. Yeah yeah, it's not supposed to effect him. But the justices are people too, and in the end their rulings are based on the sum total of their perspectives. If not, every issue would be clear and we would have a 9-0 vote every time.

If I were Obama I'd tone it down. He can still get the point across about the importance of there being clear constitutional violation if you are going to overturn something of this magnitude, without being... himself.

Uh, you know the SCOTUS has already voted, right?

2008 Geek Bored Football Pick'em Champion

Meet the new politics of hope and change - same as the old politics

What ... was your father abusive towards you? Did he fondle you in the naughty places? Is that why the subject of pedophelia bothers you so much?

Anyway, I think Obama is on dangerous ground here. If Kennedy is indeed the swing vote, he runs the risk of pissing him off. Yeah yeah, it's not supposed to effect him. But the justices are people too, and in the end their rulings are based on the sum total of their perspectives. If not, every issue would be clear and we would have a 9-0 vote every time.

If I were Obama I'd tone it down. He can still get the point across about the importance of there being clear constitutional violation if you are going to overturn something of this magnitude, without being... himself.

I'm not sure, but have they already taken at least a preliminary vote? I read where there is speculation Kagan may have leaked the results to Obama and this is why he came out swinging yesterday. I don't know if there is any validity to that, but I wouldn't be shocked if it were the case.

Oh, and Newbie is just trying to derail another thread that makes Obama look bad. It's what he does.

Actually, no I didn't. Or more accurately, I know they had an initial vote, but I thought they went through a period of discussing and cajoling each other before coming to a final decision.

"But it's the Presidential election where the average citizens come out. The ones who hardly even know there are midterms, let alone research and/or vote for them. And you guys haven't fared so well recently." -- NewbieJr, explaining that Democrats are uninformed and uninterested.

LOL> That would be as funny as you telling us how to keep or get a job.

Thanks for proving my point. I'll take the high road here.

"But it's the Presidential election where the average citizens come out. The ones who hardly even know there are midterms, let alone research and/or vote for them. And you guys haven't fared so well recently." -- NewbieJr, explaining that Democrats are uninformed and uninterested.

Great reasoning. The Feds pass a law that says hospitals can't refuse care to anyone regardless of ability to pay. Based upon that, they say we're all participants in the market for health care. Therefore, they should be able to force us to buy health insurance. See anything wrong with that logic?

If you are in a car wreck or catch a stray bullet they don't wait to verify that you have insurance coverage before treating you. So in that sense we're all participants in the market, since we all are potentially consumers and the risks that I would assume by not having insurance will affect the cost of healthcare for everyone else.

At least, that's the government's core argument. The opposition is saying it's unconsitutional for the feds to require Americans to purchase a product and they're relying on the slippery slope argument; i.e. if the government can mandate that you buy health insurance what's to stop them from requiring you to buy X, Y or Z?

I personally don't think either argument is stronger than the other one. I'm saying that as someone who's not a fan at all of Obummer's healthcare plan.

This is my signature. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.

If you are in a car wreck or catch a stray bullet they don't wait to verify that you have insurance coverage before treating you. So in that sense we're all participants in the market, since we all are potentially consumers and the risks that I would assume by not having insurance will affect the cost of healthcare for everyone else.

At least, that's the government's core argument. The opposition is saying it's unconsitutional for the feds to require Americans to purchase a product and they're relying on the slippery slope argument; i.e. if the government can mandate that you buy health insurance what's to stop them from requiring you to buy X, Y or Z?

I personally don't think either argument is stronger than the other one. I'm saying that as someone who's not a fan at all of Obummer's healthcare plan.

It's against the law for a hospital to refuse care. I don't know what happened before that law was passed, nor do I know what would happen if it was repealed. But, it is the law. I assume it is the law because there was a time when hospitals DID refuse care to some patients.

2008 Geek Bored Football Pick'em Champion

Meet the new politics of hope and change - same as the old politics

What ... was your father abusive towards you? Did he fondle you in the naughty places? Is that why the subject of pedophelia bothers you so much?

The opposition is saying it's unconsitutional for the feds to require Americans to purchase a product and they're relying on the slippery slope argument; i.e. if the government can mandate that you buy health insurance what's to stop them from requiring you to buy X, Y or Z?

That's what you're supposed to do. Had the idiots in Florida thought this was before passing the SYG law Zimmerman might be in jail right now.

2008 Geek Bored Football Pick'em Champion

Meet the new politics of hope and change - same as the old politics

What ... was your father abusive towards you? Did he fondle you in the naughty places? Is that why the subject of pedophelia bothers you so much?

It's against the law for a hospital to refuse care. I don't know what happened before that law was passed, nor do I know what would happen if it was repealed. But, it is the law. I assume it is the law because there was a time when hospitals DID refuse care to some patients.

The law (passed in 1986) only requires hospitals to provide emergency medical care to patients until they're stable, regardless of their citizenship or ability to pay. If the patient can't pay those costs are spread out among all of the other paying patients. So in that sense we're all paying for uninsured patients right now. I don't know how the Affordable Care Act changes that if at all.

This is my signature. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.

Well, yeah. I'm just saying, that argument is no more or less credible to me than the White House's counter-argument, that the risk you assume by not having health insurance affects all other health consumers. If I refuse to buy a car, the cost of cars doesn't necessarily go up for everyone else. If I refuse to buy health insurance and get into a horrible wreck, you end up paying more for your healthcare to cover my nonpayment. That's the argument.

This is my signature. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.

The law (passed in 1986) only requires hospitals to provide emergency medical care to patients until they're stable, regardless of their citizenship or ability to pay. If the patient can't pay those costs are spread out among all of the other paying patients. So in that sense we're all paying for uninsured patients right now. I don't know how the Affordable Care Act changes that if at all.

Do you have a point? You've basically just repeated what I wrote.

2008 Geek Bored Football Pick'em Champion

Meet the new politics of hope and change - same as the old politics

What ... was your father abusive towards you? Did he fondle you in the naughty places? Is that why the subject of pedophelia bothers you so much?